I don't entirely disagree. But it does feel like it's along the same slippery slope fallacy where once you start criminalizing one type of speech those who are unscrupulous enough will find a way to subvert it to attack others and restrict additional speech until dissent becomes criminal.
I don't think we should tolerate the intolerant. We as a society need to be intolerant of them, but it's a fine line when it's the government itself that is doing it. Businesses need to ostracize them. Do not sell them goods or food. Do not allow them to enter your premises. Do not hire them.
We as individuals need to do the same.
Quite frankly, it's the intolerant who have weaponized this so effectively. They have no qualms with harassing and doxing people whose views differ. I suppose there is a definition of intolerant that the tolerant need to collectively identify and fight at all costs. But it's hard to define it especially when the intolerant use our tolerance against us.
I know that doing so will lead them to their own echo chambers and enclaves. I don't have a solution for that which doesn't involve physical harm. And the older I get, the more I understand the necessity of violence in order to preserve life and peace, as much as that sounds like an oxymoron.
Yup. Like I said toward the end, it seems the only direct way is through violence and at the cost of an individuals life or liberty.
So many think that the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to simple by intolerant of intolerance. But that's such an oversimplification. I agree on principal. I just don't know how that looks in practice.